Disaster Democrats Literally Murder First Ever Transgender Candidate - Known Right Wing Shill Hillary Clinton Approves

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Hillary Clinton, well known for her neoconservative views and warmongering has descended from her ivory tower to inform her stooge Tom Perez who is first up on her kill list:

http://www.dailywire.com/news/22453/party-inclusivity-democrats-slam-door-first-ever-ryan-saavedra#

The Democratic National Committee began purging members in its progressive-wing on Wednesday for their opposition to DNC Chairman Tom Perez — a Clinton loyalist.

The move, reported by NBC News, comes after the DNC endured a brutal primary battle between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton in 2016 — a battle that fractured a party already in ruins.

Perez’s decision to remove and demote numerous far-left members of the DNC is alarming to many Democrats who see the move as a way of overstocking the DNC with Clinton-backed members on the Rules and Bylaws Committee, “which helps set the terms for the party's presidential primary.”

For a political party that supposedly prides itself on being “inclusive” the DNC did a lousy job at showing that. Not only did they oust the president of the Arab American Institute, they also booted the first-ever transgender member of the DNC, along with several others.

“James Zogby, the president of the Arab American Institute and prominent Sanders backer, is no longer co-chair of the Resolutions Committee and is off the Executive Committee, a spot he has held since 2001,” NBC News reported. “Barbra Casbar Siperstein, the first transgender member of the DNC who supported Ellison and Buckley, was tossed from the Executive Committee.”

“I can’t speak for Tom (Perez), but you talk about diversity — I’m extremely diverse: Jewish, veteran, transgender, lesbian, grandparent, small-business owner,” Siperstein said.

The DNC purge also followed Wednesday’s news that the GOP fundraising is booming at a historic rate, the Republican National Committee raising over $100 million in just the first nine months of 2017 — while the fundraising for the DNC is tanking.

The Democratic Party is in complete disarray, having lost over “1,042 state and federal Democratic posts, including congressional and state legislative seats, governorships and the presidency,” Fox News reported.
 
Click to expand...
Chris did nothing wrong said:
Last failed candidate to run twice in a row was Thomas Dewey back in the 1940s. It's not going to happen. I think people vastly overestimate the "IT WAS MY TURN!" aspect of her character. She is very unlikely to run again.

Keep in mind that the media (and the Democratic base) was heavily promoting potential Gore campaigns in 04 and 08 (which is fucking insane in hindsight) but nothing came of that.
Click to expand...
You're forgetting Adlai Stevenson running against Ike Eisenhower twice in the 1950's, and Clinton is rapidly taking over his title as "poster child for city liberals ruining the Democrat party".

As far as who they SHOULD run in 2020, I'd like to see them run someone like Tulsi Gabbard, or Sherrod Brown. Moderate progressives (not regressives) who generally try and avoid the identity politics nonsense that the progressive wing has been completely consumed by. The party needs younger blood in it anyways, it should be embarrassing that the GOP, which is supposed to be full of old fuddy duddies, has more young leaders than the Democrats.
 
AnOminous said:
It would be nice to get rid of the Kim dynasty once and for all. If Trump gets either of these done, the rest of his Presidency could be a dead waste and he'd still go down as a success.
Click to expand...
If we go to war with the norks - a war which will last all of about 6 hours before North Korea ceases to exist as a state - I think 2020 will be his on a silver platter. It's way too easy to sell "hey you know that glorified concentration camp the size of Indiana that's been threatening the free world for 65 years? Not under my watch."
 
In the Soviet Union, gerontocracy became increasingly entrenched starting in the 1970s, at least until March 1985, when a more dynamic and younger, ambitious leadership headed by Mikhail Gorbachev took power.[4] Leonid Brezhnev, its foremost representative,[5] died in 1982 aged 75, but had suffered a heart attack in 1975, after which generalized arteriosclerosis set in, so that he was progressively infirm and had trouble speaking. During his last two years he was essentially a figurehead.[6]

In 1980, the average Politburo member was 70 years old (as opposed to 55 in 1952 and 61 in 1964), and by 1982, Brezhnev's Minister of Foreign Affairs Andrei Gromyko, his Minister of Defense Dmitriy Ustinov and his Premier Nikolai Tikhonov were all in their mid-to-late seventies.[7] Yuri Andropov, Brezhnev's 68-year-old successor, was seriously ill with kidney disease when he took over,[8] and after his death fifteen months later, he was succeeded by Konstantin Chernenko, then 72, who lasted thirteen months before his death and replacement with Gorbachev. Chernenko became the third Soviet leader to die in less than three years, and, upon being informed in the middle of the night of his death, U.S. President Ronald Reagan, who was seven months older than Chernenko and just over three years older than his predecessor Andropov, is reported to have remarked "How am I supposed to get anyplace with the Russians if they keep dying on me?"[9]
Click to expand...
Hmm, why does this sound so familiar?
 
Alec Benson Leary said:
If we go to war with the norks - a war which will last all of about 6 hours before North Korea ceases to exist as a state - I think 2020 will be his on a silver platter. It's way too easy to sell "hey you know that glorified concentration camp the size of Indiana that's been threatening the free world for 65 years? Not under my watch."
Click to expand...

It's a boil that needs to be flensed.

That's sort of what worries me. This moron could get a second term just by doing that.

At the same time, though, it needs to be done.

kobebyarlant said:
Hmm, why does this sound so familiar?
Click to expand...

Old people usually have experience. There's a reason most leaders are old.

Don't disregard the benefits of having leaders who have a long life behind them.
 
They can run whoever. I'm certain Trump will get a second term. I was certain he'd get the first one since sometime before the rnc.
The only time I wasn't was around pussygate and he was predicted to have like 20% odds or something... I learned my lesson, you can't stump trump.

Maybe Zuckerberg will run :story:
 
Last edited:
Zuckerberg. The corpse of a hard line Amish shut-in has more personality than Zuckerborg.
 
melty said:
They can run whoever. I'm certain Trump will get a second term. I was certain he'd get the first one since sometime before the rnc..
Click to expand...

The sad part is you're probably right. Hell, I'd even go so far as to say that there's a 50/50 chance of Trump getting a second term as of today. But the next few years could bring plenty of surprises.

Chris did nothing wrong said:
You’re too optimist if you think somebody who isn’t a Christian or Jew will be president anytime soon. And Republicans will paint her as an Iranian cocksucker for her Syria policy.
Click to expand...

Man, I wish they'd pick her. I'd feel a lot more comfortable with someone like Gabbard over Hillary trying a third time. But yeah, the country isn't receptive to anyone who isn't a Protestant Christian (remember, JFK encountered a ton of blowback for being Catholic and he's so far the only Catholic president we've had) or Jewish... I mean, ffs, Mitt Romney got dragged over his Mormonism. I can only imagine how people on both sides would try and drag Gabbard simply because she's Hindu.
 
Chris did nothing wrong said:
He might, but I doubt the base would vote him in for Facebook's alleged role in Russiagate.
Click to expand...

Nobody would vote for him anyway. He's the most genuinely autistic public figure I've ever seen, and that's the only thing about him that can be described as "genuine." He exemplifies everything about Silicon Valley bullshit that people hate. Even people who still love Facebook for some reason dislike him for unnecessarily and constantly fucking with their Facebook experience, selling their private data, collaborating directly with world leaders for censorship purposes, and insisting on being the public face of the company despite being weird and robotic and creepy and unlikable.

He just needs to take his money and go away. If he wants to do good in the world, he can do what Bill Gates does.
 
Zuckerberg is most certainly running but nobody will vote for him. The fact that the autistic cunt thinks he can actually get anywhere is laughable. He is genuinely unlikable and pretty much everyone knows he is a piece of shit.

But the progressive wing is the populist wing, anti corporate and anti wall street. This isn't the first time they have done this, just the most extreme. They did it so obviously they won't have another Bernie. Them doing this indicates they still have no idea why they lost. They might recover some seats in the midterm elections but I don't know about the executive.
 
Secret Asshole said:
Zuckerberg is most certainly running but nobody will vote for him. The fact that the autistic cunt thinks he can actually get anywhere is laughable. He is genuinely unlikable and pretty much everyone knows he is a piece of shit.

But the progressive wing is the populist wing, anti corporate and anti wall street. This isn't the first time they have done this, just the most extreme. They did it so obviously they won't have another Bernie. Them doing this indicates they still have no idea why they lost. They might recover some seats in the midterm elections but I don't know about the executive.
Click to expand...
They probably have an idea of why they lost. They just know that if the Sanders wing of the party gained power the current regime would be fucked. The only path that the Democrats have to winning in the forseeable future is for the 3rd Wayers/Clintonites to lose control, and they're not going to let that happen willingly.
 
Last edited:
Corypheus said:
They probably have an idea of why they lost; they just know that if the Sanders wing of the party gained power the current regime within is fucked. The only path that the Democrats have to winning in the forseeable future is for that 3rd Wayers/Clintonites to lose control, and they aren't willing to let that happen.
Click to expand...

Much like Saddam Hussein, Hillary Clinton would rather kill a stolen goat than return it.

Wait what
 
The problem with this, is that without getting some big donors to defect with them a party split isn't feasible. It takes money to run for national office, and the big two are really good at getting money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom